Tuesday, January 10, 2017

Yes there is an error in Amoris Laetitia however Vatican Council II also has the same error and so could not be considered magisterial by Cardinal Burke.There is an objective error in Vatican Council II and this cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit.

Amoris Laetitia rejects traditional moral theology with subjectivism. It assumes what is subjectively known only to God is also known to man. It assumes for example, that we can judge when a couple in objective mortal sin is not in mortal sin. So the Eucharist could be given to them. It rejects Veritatis Splendor and Catholic morality as was taught by Pope John Paul and previous popes, based on the Bible.

In the document, the cardinal said, Pope Francis asks priests “to discern the situation of these persons living in an irregular union — that is, not in accordance with the doctrine of the church on marriage — and asks for help for these people to find a path for a new integration into the church according to the condition of the sacraments (and) the Christian message on matrimony.”1

SUBJECTIVISM IN SALVATION AND MORAL THEOLOGY

Similarly the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 to the Archbishop of Boston also has rejected traditional salvation theology with subjectivism .This error has been placed in Vatican Council II.The Letter 1949 in principle accepted that hypothetical cases of the baptism of desire etc were objectively visible in the present times. Then with this irrational premise it concluded that there are known exceptions to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Vatican Council II also suggests in principle that hypothetical cases are a rupture with Tradition, in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus(EENS) and the Syllabus of Errors.

SUBJECTIVISM IN VATICAN COUNCIL II

So not only the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance(LG 16, AG 7, LG 14) refer to exceptions to EENS but also ' being saved in imperfect communion with the Church (UR 3), seeds of the Word(AG 11), 'good and holy things in other religions'(NA 2),'elements of sanctification and truth'(LG 8),known cases of salvation outside the visible body of the Church with the 'subsistit it' new theology(LG 8) etc.

MIX UP BETWEEN INVISIBLE AND VISIBLE CASES

This is bad philosophy. It has mixed up what is invisible as being visible, what is subjective as being defacto known, what is hypothetical as being objectively seen.

This is a factual and objective error in Vatican Council II with reference to the dogma EENS.

We cannot see people who are now saved in Heaven with the baptism of desire etc. So why are they mentioned with reference to EENS? I accept them as hypothetical cases.So there is a choice.Vatican Council II chooses the irrational option.

With bad philosophy bad theology was created and accepted by the Council Fathers.The magisteriuam had already not corrected the error in the 1949 Letter.The Archbishop of Boston did not support Fr.Leonard Feeney. He was saying there are no known cases of the baptism of desire etc and so there could not be salvation outside the Church.

Some of the Church Fathers at Vatican Council II accepted this error and inserted it in the text since they believed that the baptism of desire etc referred to known cases in the present times.

NOT WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

This is all an objective error.It cannot be the work of the Holy Spirit. This is definitely not magisterial since it contradicts the centuries old interpretation of the dogma EENS by the past magisterium.It also does all this with the use of an irrational premise to create a non traditional conclusion.This new theology is based on an irrational premise.

NO DUBBIA ON VATICAN COUNCIL II AND SALVATION THEOLOGY

So for Cardinal Burke Vatican Council II would also not be magisterial ? Yes - if he would consider all this information.

According to Veritatis Splendor a mortal sin is a mortal sin and the external action indicates the subjective state.If a women is dressed immodestly it is a mortal sin.The outer action indicates the inner state of the soul.

If a couple are living together who are not married it is a mortal.There is scandal.

Father Bernard Haring and Fr.Richard Cushing both Redemptorist priests said NO.So does Amoris Laetitia.

In his letter on the family, Pope Francis affirmed Church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, but he also urged pastors to provide spiritual guidance and assistance with discernment to Catholics who have married civilly without an annulment of their church marriage. A process of discernment, he has said, might eventually lead to a determination that access to the sacraments is possible.

The possibility reflects a change in church teaching on the indissolubility of marriage and the sinfulness of sexual relations outside a valid marriage, in the view of the document written by Cardinals Burke; Walter Brandmuller, a German and former president of the Pontifical Commission for Historical Sciences; Carlo Caffarra, retired archbishop of Bologna, Italy; and Joachim Meisner, retired archbishop of Cologne, Germany.

They presented many exceptions, theoretical possibilities which they considered exceptions to the tradtional moral understanding of the Catholic Church. For them the exception proved the rule wrong.So in Germany the Eucharist is being given to couples who had married and had divorced.

These liberals also speculated that within each person there is a Fundamental Option for good and even though the external action was a mortal sin, interiorly the soul was not in sin or to blame.They called this the Fundamental Option Theory.It is specifically mentioned in Veritatis Splendor and is criticised.

So when Pope Francis supports the Fundamental Option Theory in Amoris Laetitia he is striking at the doctrine.There is a new doctrine which has a new application.The traditional doctrine has been changed by assuming we can judge individual exceptions.Pope Benedict approved this to be taught in moral and salvation theology at pontifical universities.

Even after Veritatis Splendor was issued the liberals and Masons continued to teach the Fundamental Option Theory at the Pontifical universities . The books of Fr. Charles Curran , I noticed, were available in the reference section of the University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome.This is leftist moral theology blessed in Amoris Laetitia by Pope Francis and Cardinal Muller

Chris Ferrara note how Amoris Laetitia has references from Vatican Council II in which subjectiveness is confused as being objective, what is implicit is considered explicit.An irrational premise is used to reach a non traditional and heretical conclusion

Amoris Laetitia is the official approval of the new moral theology based on hypothetical cases being objectively known exceptions and exceptions make the rule : it supports the errors of Fr.Charles Curran

Cardinal Kasper will say doctrine has not been changed in principle, in theory but he knows very well that with the new theology, doctrine has been changed de jure and de facto, in principle and in fact